Reply to a Mockery — Page 86
86 He then slanders the Promised Messiah as by adding the words اسمع ولدي and claiming that this too was one of the Promised Messiah’s revelations. Maulaw i Abul Bash i r records all three together under the title, ‘I am the Son of God’. This leaves the reader with the impression that (God forbid) Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be the son of God. Dear readers! There is no revelation of Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s in the words اسمع ولدي. There is a revelation worded اسمع وارى which means: ‘I hear and I see. ’ It was written incorrectly by scriber’s error. The word وَاَرى [ wa ar a ] was misprinted as ْ وَلَدِي [ walad i ]. Hence the revelation اسمع وارى was erroneously recorded as اسمع ولدي. It is extreme dishonesty on the part of Maulaw i Sahib that not only did he fail to cancel the superfluous line between the Alif and the Ra, but he went further and altered the vowels of the revela- tion. ُ اَسْمَع [ Asma‘u ] became ْ اِسْمَع [ Isma‘ ] and ْ وَاَرَی [ Wa-ar a ] became ْ وَلَدِي [ Walad i ]. He then based his objections on this misquotation. As far as the other two revelations are concerned, it is worth noting that there is a world of difference between ْ بِمَنْزِلَۃ ِ وَلَدِي [at the station of a son] and ْ وَلَدِي [my son]. God has no sons; but if He were to say, ‘I love you as a father loves his son’, this would not be a new figure of speech. The Bible is full of such phrases. In fact, all the Prophets are referred to as God’s sons in the Bible. Will Maulaw i Sahib then come to the conclusion that God had sons before the time of the Holy Prophet s as but ceased to have them once the Quran had been revealed? The Holy Quran states: ْمَل ْدِلَي١ۙ۬ َو ْمَل ْدَلْوُي , i. e. God never had any sons. He neither begot nor was He begotten. This is what Hadrat